The Star Ledger, Newark, NJ,
Thursday, January 25, 2001.

ACCORD NOT TO CIRCUMCISE SON STILL LEAVES HEATED LEGAL
DEBATE

A divorcing couple who went to court over the circumcision
of their 3-year-old son settled the dispute yesterday when
the boy's mother withdrew a request to have the surgery
performed.

The case, which
attracted significant attention from medical groups, legal
scholars and the media, was decided behind closed doors in
the Somerville County Courthouse.

State Superior Court Judge Paul Armstrong signed the
consent order yesterday morning, which said the request for
surgery had been dropped and the issue resolved. No other
terms of the settlement were disclosed. "We are certain that
our decision will promote Matthew's best interests and
welfare," read a joint statement released by the boy's
parents, James Price of Raritan and Jennifer Price of
Clinton, who share custody.

James Price has previously maintained that if a
judge—at any level— granted the circumcision, he
would oppose it. "We are going to do what's right for
Matthew. We love him very much," the father said yesterday.
The case, which went on for seven months, became a focal
point in the debate over the need for circumcision. A
California-based nonprofit group called the National Organization of
Circumcision Information Resource Centers, came to the
aid of James Price, setting up a website to raise funds for his legal
battle, and filed court papers to support his opposition.
About 64 percent of the nation's boys are circumcised shortly
after birth, according to the National Center for Health
Statistics, but in 1999, the American Academy of
Pediatrics stepped back from its position that the
procedure should be done at birth.

The medical community also weighed in. A "friend of the
court brief" was filed by the Medical Society of New Jersey and the
Urological Society of New Jersey opposing court-ordered
treatments. The medical community says those decisions should
be made by doctors and parents.

Legal scholars said the case had the potential to set an
explosive precedent that could have sent divorced or
separated parents back to court to settle routine health
matters normally decided by the custodial parent. As the case
made headlines, James Price appeared on the Howard Stern
radio show and on the Montel Williams TV talk show.

While yesterday's settlement might have resolved the issue
of a circumcision in Matthew's immediate future, it has not
resolved the debate over the case's legal impact.

Edward O'Donnell, the attorney appointed to act as
quardian in the case, said the decision "reaffirms the
familial autonomy accorded health care decisions, even in the
context of divorce litigation."

Another family law professor says the case could have a
different precedential value. "Even custodial parents'
viewpoints of medical treatments can only be sustained if
they can prove that treatment is medically necessary," said
Claudette St. Romaine at Seton Hall
University Law
School in Newark.

But Norman Cantor, a professor at Rutgers University Law School in Newark,
said it's hard to tell what long-term effects the case may
have. "If a private settlement is reached in a case and there
is not a real authoritative ruling then there is
no...impact," said Cantor.

Jennifer Price, 32, filed for divorce last spring. When
the boy suffered through two cases of foreskin inflammation,
doctors suggested a circumcision to help alleviate the
possibility of recurring infections.

But James Price objected, citing personal trauma from
penile surgeries he had as a child and the possiblity that
Matthew might have diminished sexual pleasure in the
future.

As is often the case with divorcing couples, the Prices
turned to the courts to intervene. In August, Armstrong
ordered the procedure. However, the doctor involved backed
out after James Price, 40, threatened legal action against
him. The parties returned to court and Armstrong stuck to his
initial decision.

An appellate court agreed.

Then, in October, the state Supreme Court sent the matter back to
Somerville for a full hearing to determine if the procedure
was "medically necessary." Yesterday's order brought the case
to an end.